Asian supply chain sources are now claiming Apple will release a 7.85-inch iPad by the fourth quarter of 2012 to face off against competition from smaller tablets such as Amazon's Kindle Fire.

DigiTimes claimed on Friday that Apple is "likely" to launch a smaller iPad several months after the next-generation iPad, which is expected to arrive at the end of the first quarter.

"In order to cope with increasing market competition including the 7-inch Kindle Fire from Amazon and the launch of large-size smartphones from handset vendors, Apple has been persuaded into the development of 7.85-inch iPads," the report noted sources as saying.

Apple will allegedly purchase the 7.85-inch panels from LG Display and AU Optronics, with makers within the company's supply chain expected to begin production of the smaller iPad at the end of the second quarter of 2012.

The report should, however, be taken with some degree of skepticism, as the Taiwanese industry publication has a mixed track record with Apple predictions.

Rumors of a 7-inch iPad were supposedly laid to rest when late Apple co-founder Steve Jobs proclaimed such a screen to be "too small to express the software." However, reports of the device were resurrected this fall after the announcement of Amazon's Kindle Fire, which some have touted as the first credible challenger to the iPad.

Ticonderoga securities analyst Brian White claimed in October that he had heard rumblings of a so-called "iPad mini" arriving next year, though he believed the device would be cheaper and not necessarily smaller. Also in October, DigiTimes reported that suppliers were gearing up to ship 7.85-inch screens to Apple.

For its part, Amazon may not even stick with the 7-inch size for its Kindle Fire. Recent reports have suggested that the company is looking to expand to an 8.9-inch model. The Fire does appear to be on its way to success, as Amazon revealed on Thursday that millions of the device had been sold, though it declined to provide specific figures.

I'm not seeing it. I could see a larger iPod Touch before a smaller iPad.

At this point it's academic. The point is the larger / smaller screen which would be great for gaming and social apps. But if we are talking about enlarging or shrinking existing ui's, then yeah, a smaller iPad is out of the question.

But we're talking about completely different UI paradigms. For Apple to change CocoaTouch UI they need to rethink everything to idealize it for the display, but for Aqua they don't have to change anything for it to work.

Just look at the iPhone after 5 generations. We still have the exact same size and aspect ratio and they only changed the resolution when they could feasibly double the resolution. For Apple to add another CocoaTouch UI paradigm to the mix will be a huge undertaking and require a lot of consideration, which is probably why we have 3 models of iPhone going back three generations and 4 sizes of Mac notebook displays but all of the same generation.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

The iPad is a perfect size. Just like the iPhone. No need to confuse their product line, and I don't hear of any demand for a smaller iPad or bigger iPhone that rumour sites keep hinting at.

Yes and no. The iPad is the perfect size for me, but something in between the iPad and iPod would be perfect for my kids. They use their pods for gaming, YouTube, Facebook, ( some email), music and surfing, in that order.

At this point it's academic. The point is the larger / smaller screen which would be great for gaming and social apps. But if we are talking about enlarging or shrinking existing ui's, then yeah, a smaller iPad is out of the question.

From a marketing standpoint I think a 5-7" iPod Touch would strengthen the iPod segment but a 5-7" iPad would weaken the iPad segment. That's pretty much my reasoning on that point.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

From a marketing standpoint I think a 5-7" iPod Touch would strengthen the iPod segment but a 5-7" iPad would weaken the iPad segment. That's pretty much my reasoning on that point.

Ok, I see your point and agree. I wonder if they would call it something else entirely. To some extent such a device would cannibalize both segments but I don't think that would be a 'problem'. I imagine the iPod segment would suffer the most but it it would easily be offset for by massives sales of this new device. It would make the perfect gaming device.

Yes and no. The iPad is the perfect size for me, but something in between the iPad and iPod would be perfect for my kids. They use their pods for gaming, YouTube, Facebook, ( some email), music and surfing, in that order.

I will never say never - we might actually see something from Apple in that form factor. And if it made design sense, usability sense and business sense I'm sure it would have released even if Steve was there.
But it seems that they did try out various sizes and form factors before zeroing in on the current size. I'm not sure they would go back to something they felt wouldn't work - unless there was a technical constraint before that isn't there now.

The iPad is a perfect size. Just like the iPhone. No need to confuse their product line, and I don't hear of any demand for a smaller iPad or bigger iPhone that rumour sites keep hinting at.

Uh, have ya ever LOOKED at the laptop line? Which of them is the 'perfect' size?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

But we're talking about completely different UI paradigms.

Yeah, someone who just wants a smaller iPad for a certain purpose is going to say exactly that and not buy. Yup. That's how it works, all right.

Now, back in the Real World (where us Earthlings live), what will actually happen is that Apple will see the market opportunity for smaller devices (i.e., Kindles selling like mad) and will simply Make It Happen.
Seems obvious, but the obvious can be hard to see with your head so far up your ass.

At this point it's academic. The point is the larger / smaller screen which would be great for gaming and social apps. But if we are talking about enlarging or shrinking existing ui's, then yeah, a smaller iPad is out of the question.

Shrinking or enlarging UIs is a daft idea and I really can't see Apple doing it. You should optimize the layout for the screen size. Buttons and text should stay the same size, just their position changes. It is no different from how windows resize on a Mac.

It would also make for a better in vehicle device. The problem is iPad currently is awfully big for the needs of highly mobile professionals. But why would anybody seriously think that Apple would stop at this point with just one sized device, iPad is highly successful and more choice will just lead to more sales and market share.

As to software, it really isn't a problem guys. Developers will either support the device or they won't. This is no different than iPad today where some apps are developed specifically for it and no other iOS device.

In any event iOS has been so successful for Apple they aren't going to stop at just one tablet or the current iOS line up. More and more hardware will come from Apple making use of iOS. Maybe even things nobody here has thought of.

Yeah, someone who just wants a smaller iPad for a certain purpose is going to say exactly that and not buy. Yup. That's how it works, all right.

Now, back in the Real World (where us Earthlings live), what will actually happen is that Apple will see the market opportunity for smaller devices (i.e., Kindles selling like mad) and will simply Make It Happen.
Seems obvious, but the obvious can be hard to see with your head so far up your ass.

I'm not sure what part of "UI paradigm" you failed to understand or why you'd mention the Kindle when Apple introduced their first CocoaTouch UI on the iPhone, which is about 1/4 the display area of the Kindle.

To reiterate, Mac OS can grow with various sized displays because of the windowed model( even though it has its limits), while iOS's CocoaTouch UI needs to be tailored to each device display based on size and aspect ratio in orde to optimize it for the primary input. If you can't see that and think the iPhone's OS would look just as good on an 11 MBA as it would on a 27" iMac then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Very unlikely. In the remote chance they did this, it would probably just run iPhone apps, just games, or no third party apps at all. I think it is more likely we would see a less expensive variant of the iPad 3.

I'm not sure what part of "UI paradigm" you failed to understand or why you'd mention the Kindle when Apple introduced their first CocoaTouch UI on the iPhone, which is about 1/4 the display area of the Kindle.

To reiterate, Mac OS can grow with various sized displays because of the windowed model( even though it has its limits), while iOS's CocoaTouch UI needs to be tailored to each device display based on size and aspect ratio in orde to optimize it for the primary input. If you can't see that and think the iPhone's OS would look just as good on an 11 MBA as it would on a 27" iMac then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

Once again, with you it's always the OTHER guy who has the very problem you exhibit. Meanwhile, the very next post on this forum projects a boatload of Kindles cutting deeply into the iPad market.

Apple can obviously make iOS work on any sized device they need it to, and because of the Kindle, they need it to. Exactly what part of that don't YOU understand?

Perhaps YOU shouldn't be here, though it's painfully evident by now that you simply have nowhere else to go. Don't concern yourself, though. Just keep saying 'paradigm' and telling yourself you're the only one who knows what it means. Yuck.

Fortunately, this forum has a garbage can - er, an ignore function. Life's too short. So long, clownboy.

Once again, with you it's always the OTHER guy who has the very problem you exhibit. Meanwhile, the very next post on this forum projects a boatload of Kindles cutting deeply into the iPad market.

Apple can obviously make iOS work on any sized device they need it to, and because of the Kindle, they need it to. Exactly what part of that don't YOU understand?

Perhaps YOU shouldn't be here, though it's painfully evident by now that you simply have nowhere else to go.

So your brilliant¡ answer to the loss-leader Kindle that will bring down Apple's marketshare but not hut their tablet profit is to cram the iPad's UI designed for a 9.7" device into a 7" display.

Care to explain 1) why you think having 7" optimized UI on a 7" device makes sense because they can offer multiple display sizes in Mac OS, and 2) why CocoaTouch and Aqua UI paradigms are not intrinsically different?

edit: And before you start your circus quality backpeddling money show let me refresh to what you referring….

But we're talking about completely different UI paradigms. For Apple to change CocoaTouch UI they need to rethink everything to idealize it for the display, but for Aqua they don't have to change anything for it to work.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Apple should do what they've been doing with iPhone - let the iPad 2 be the inexpensive model once the iPad 3 is introduced. $300-400 maybe?

Following the iPhone scaling seems like the best option at this point.

However, I still have doubts about this Retina Display (264ppi) display in the iPad 3 in terms of cost for the panel, cost for the backlighting, cost for manufacturing, and cost for battery, GPU and other components that will make it work. That makes me think such a device could come in at a higher price point than what's currently offered or only offered at the high end do production limitations.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

The results of an AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers conducted for Morgan Stanley:

Quote:

With a $100 price cut Apple could sell 15 million more iPads. Even after applying a 30% discount to the survey results (where does she get these numbers?), Huberty estimates that if Apple were to reduce the price of the cheapest iPad 2 to $399, it could sell 90 million iPads worldwide in 2012, roughly 10 million more than its suppliers have reportedly been asked to build.

I doubt it. Apps come in two sizes: iPhone size for 2x3 inch screens and iPad size for 7 and 34 x 5 and 3/4 inches (more or less). It's hard enough to get developers to make TWO versions of their apps let alone a 3rd version for a smaller iPad. Running current iPad apps on a smaller iPad would be a poor user experience because the graphics in menus and such would be microscopic since they were designed for a considerably larger device.

Let's be honest... the Kindle Fire isn't selling because of its size. It's selling because it's dirt cheap since Amazon doesn't even try to break even with it.

The problem with the 7-inch form factor is that it's a compromise all the way around, offering the worst possible outcome. By drastically reducing screen real estate (going from 9.7 inches to 7 inches is a far more drastic reduction than you might think) you diminish the quality of user experience. Here's the worst part, though. You do this with not much upside. The resulting device is still too large to be easily slipped into a pocket and carried anywhere with next to no footprint.

The sweet spot, so to speak, in my view comes from making the largest possible device that can be slipped into most pockets. That's what the Touch should be, i.e. a pocketable unit that compromises as little as possible on screen real estate because you can never have too much screen for gaming, video, browsing, etc.

Making a larger Touch also makes sense, rather than coming up with a third product because there would otherwise be too much pricing creep. Apple has tended to set up its products to spread across the pricing spectrum. A range of Touch models based around a larger screen combined with the iPad range and the laptop models would accomplish this nicely and make it difficult for competitors to take on Apple with price alone. Along with the larger Touch, Apple could modestly upsize the Nano to fill that void and have all the bases covered.

There is another point to consider. By releasing a 7-inch iPad, it would be sending a message that I think Apple would prefer not to, namely that with Jobs gone, Apple will veer from the successful path he put it on. A larger Touch, on the other hand, would avoid this.

I don't know precisely what the ideal size would be for a pocketable device like the Touch but I believe, for what it's worth, that Apple doesn't have it right quite yet. On the other hand, the iPad is right on the money. Large enough to provide a fine user experience but small enough to be convenient to putter around the house with. Continued efforts to reduce weight will make it that much more suited to the role it has been assigned.

It's the Touch that just doesn't feel quite right. It has a compromised feel to it that's just not what I would expect from Apple. It's as if a screen that makes sense on a phone was used for a portable computing device that could use more real estate. If current management wants to continue down the path that Jobs was leading the company on, that's the product that could use a form factor overhaul. It needs a bigger screen and that should be considered ahead of bringing to market a 7-inch tweener device that I suspect Jobs would never have signed off on.

I'm not seeing it. I could see a larger iPod Touch before a smaller iPad.

Surely not an iPod with a 7.85" screen!

In any case it's more an argument over the name than anything. Sure there's technical differences in the two UI's. Any 7-8" iPod or iPad would be targeting those buyers who think they want a smaller tablet. Period. They aren't looking for a bigger iPod and regardless what you might want to call it, they'll refer to it as a tablet.

It really won't monetarily matter what name is slapped on the vaporware device and shouldn't be concerning to anyone except the purists who are so fully-invested in the idea that a real tablet could only be is the size that Mr. Jobs said it should be.

A 7-inch iPad will be great. Apple should make also a MacBook Air 7-inch. Because true portability is the number one feature in these cases!

For real portability, you need a 3.5" MacBook Air. 7" would never fit in your pocket. But, hey, why not, all screen sizes are equally good, and the Aqua UI would work perfectly well at 3.5", or you could just have your developers redesign their apps for an AquaTiny UI. A lot of people would love to have a 3.5" MBA and Apple is missing out on a big market segment by not offering it. If other PC manufacturers start offering 3.5" ultrabooks, Apple will have no choice but to do so too, or they are doomed.

Man, how many friggin' times does this nonsense have to be repeated before the idiots that make it up realize it is not going to happen.

I must have heard this 'rumor from the supply chain' BS about a smaller iPad at least once every three months since the first iPad was released, for a grand total of about 12 times. Just stop it already.

The results of an AlphaWise survey of U.S. consumers conducted for Morgan Stanley:

Yes, by applying a 50% price cut Apple could sell 20x the amount of products they do.

However, Apple is already selling as much iPads and iPhones than they can possibly manufacture. Why don't the analysts see that as the bottleneck? Can they supply chain and manufacture better than Tim Cook? I'd like to see them try. Maybe someone could do better than Tim Cook out there, but it sure as heck ain't the analysts.

Aside from SJ's comment about sandpaper, there's just no way Apple could produce a 7 inc tablet and price it competitively against the rest.

The Kindle Fire may suck, but it's not a general purpose tablet. It's just a window to Amazon content. It does that really well. And for the vast majority of the public that's good enough. Apple can't compete with that concept head-on.

If Apple wanted to compete with Kindle they would ship a larger iPod Touch with Mirasol or E-Ink display.

If 7" is more portable than 10" then sure 3.5" is the most portable. They could sell a 7" iPod Touch with the same aspect ratio and number of pixels as the Galaxy Nexus and sell it as the iPod Video and debut it with a 4G LTE radio that does iBooks, NetFlix and iTunes video but runs the iPhone Version of Newsstand.

There is no question of competing with the Kindle Fire. It would be a pointless race to the bottom -let Amazon fight that market with all the other wanabees - somebody has to. I could see a 7" happening but it's not a game changer and presumably it would need the new factories in Brazil to get up to full speed. Apple problem is not selling stuff - it's making it.

Now what would be a game-changer?... a 15" iPad. Many new use cases not presently covered. Ponder that one for a while me hearties.